LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for NLS-REPORTS Archives


NLS-REPORTS Archives

NLS-REPORTS Archives


NLS-REPORTS@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

NLS-REPORTS Home

NLS-REPORTS Home

NLS-REPORTS  July 2006

NLS-REPORTS July 2006

Subject:

Network Bulletin No. 06-34 (Digital Long-Term Planning Group--Report from the May 2006 meeting)

From:

NLSBPH <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

NLS Documents for Network Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:38:25 -0400

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (201 lines)

Network Bulletin No. 06-34


Date: July 28, 20006


Subject: Digital Long-Term Planning Group
Index Term: Report from the May 2006 meeting


The Digital Long-Term Planning Group held its seventh meeting at NSL May 23-24,
2006.  A summary of the group's discussions and presentations is attached.


For further information contact:

Steve Prine
Head, Network Services Section
[log in to unmask]

Enclosure
______________________________________________________________________________ 



Digital Long-Term Planning Group Meeting                    

May 23-24, 2006

Members of the group who were present:

David Andrews, National Federation of the Blind
Meredith Beckhardt, library program administrator, Bureau of Braille and Talking Book Library 
Services (Florida)
Kim Charlson, librarian, Braille and Talking Book Library, Perkins School for the Blind
(Massachusetts)
Paul Edwards, American Council of the Blind
Barbara Goral, retired Colorado regional librarian
Kathleen Kappel, librarian, Library for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, Carnegie Library
of Pittsburgh                                     
Karen Keninger, librarian, Library for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, Iowa Department 
for the Blind
Donna Jones Morris, state librarian, Utah State Library Division
Karen Odean, librarian, Voices of Vision, Talking Book Center (Illinois)
Doris Ott, state librarian, North Dakota State Library
Irene Padilla, state librarian, Maryland State Department of Education
Peggy Rudd, director and state librarian, Texas State Library and Archives Commission
Richard Smith, librarian, Wolfner Library for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (Missouri)
Michael York, state librarian, New Hampshire State Library

Tuesday, May 23

Jeff Witt, of the National Federation of the Blind (NFB); Michael Katzmann, head, NLS
Engineering Section; and Michael Moodie, NLS deputy director, presented a review of player,
cartridge, and mailing-container prototypes.  The presentation sparked several questions from the
group about the design and functionality of the player, cartridge, and mailing container as they
had progressed so far, but the group was generally pleased with the products demonstrated.

The DTB system prelaunch testing and full launch goals, plans, and assumptions were outlined
by a panel consisting of Bob Fistick, acting chief, Materials Development Division; Bob Axtell,
head, Bibliographic Control Section; Jim Herndon, head, Collection Development Section;
Michael Katzmann; and Bob Norton, head, Quality Assurance Section.  Prelaunch testing will
consist of field testing approximately 2,000 players and associated cartridges for several months,
prior to the start of mass production.

The panel posed several questions regarding the number of libraries needed to take part in the
test, the number of titles needed to keep field testers engaged, and the number of testers and
players needed for prelaunch testing.

The group was comfortable with a subset of libraries conducting the field test, noting the
advantage of being able to prepare a smaller group of libraries more thoroughly. Concerns about
the possibility of unfairness might arise but could be allayed if the time between the field test and
the rollout is as short as planned.  In selecting the libraries, NLS was also urged to ensure that all
local circulation system types were exercised and that all regions were represented during the
field test. Another suggestion was to select libraries with a high average circulation per reader as
a way of getting books to avid readers/testers.

Concerning training and support, some urged that consideration be given to preparing online
player documentation that reader advisors could consult when talking to patrons. One member
suggested distributing the scripts for the players' onboard help and information functions to
libraries.  NLS proposed a guide on DVD that could demonstrate functions in a way that could
not be done online, although at least one librarian preferred the idea of streaming video.  Another
objected to streaming video because some libraries have poor Internet connections. 

There was widespread agreement that tester feedback should not be confined to bugs.  A web site
the libraries could use to report bugs was recommended.  Someone suggested that the field test
not be called a beta test, as that implied that things would have to be fixed.  One attendee
suggested that the testers be clearly informed that this was not a usability test of what features
were useful, but of what did not work. Others indicated that if NLS wanted to do a survey of the
field testers the survey should be brief and structured.

Concerning selection of testers, librarians indicated they were already developing lists of
interested readers. While one librarian felt it would be important to have the sort of patron who
was unwilling to try the new technology represented, many thought it would be hard to recruit
this sort of patron. Others indicated that, based on experience with other tests, the testers would
not care what titles were available; they would be interested in trying out the features.  

One librarian suggested having a player at every library.

Alice Baker, digital contracts administrator; Neil Bernstein, research and development officer;
and Michael Martys, automation officer, spoke about the audiobook and magazine download
system.

Michael Martys sought input on web site design issues. The subsequent discussion focused on
privacy issues.  Some librarians wanted the NLS web site to communicate download information
to local systems so they could retain records of patron downloads in their local systems. Others
argued that this was a violation of privacy and that in some states it would be against the law to
keep this information. While some librarians proposed making the retention of download
information voluntary on the part of the reader (through a checkbox on the web site) another
objected that it was a matter of state law and should not be up to the patron. Martys asked if the
privacy issue could be considered in more detail by some group. One librarian felt that the
DLTPG was the appropriate group and another recommended forming a subcommittee on the
topic.  

Wednesday, May 24

Jerry Ducrest and other ManTech associates presented the draft report on the distribution system
design in some detail, including the data summarized in the many appendixes.

The group requested that the statistics in appendix 4 be broken down by separate subregional and
regional libraries. They also took the opportunity to recommend consideration of using larger
capacity cartridges to avoid the problems associated with multipart books, because they often are
not returned together. 

Librarians commented that issues other than title age, such as number of copies available for loan
or bad subject assignment, could affect circulation. The amount of title circulation as forecast for
DTBs might be driven down by the availability of downloadable titles. Another librarian opined
that the ease of use might drive circulation up. 

The group expressed concern about the possibility of copying DTBs to cassettes and the
requirements for librarians to keep cassette copies.

After lunch Jerry Ducrest, Bob Fistick, and John Bryant, head, Production Control Section,
discussed the transition from RC to DTBs, describing the projected change in numbers of titles
and copies in both media over the four-year transition period.  

Jean Moss discussed the detailed preparations underway for the FY 2008 budget request, the first
of four requests for the funds needed to support a rapid transition from cassette to DTB. 

At points throughout the morning and early afternoon presentations, the discussions strayed on to
the topic of regional libraries undertaking duplication of the retrospectively converted titles that
would not be immediately available on flash media. This led to questions about procuring blank
cartridges at regional libraries and the proposal to investigate using library consortia (such as
Solinet) for aggregating demand.  One also asked if the multistate centers could supply these
titles on flash cartridges.

NLS stressed that it did not intend for regional libraries to become responsible for duplication on
demand. Others felt that, intention notwithstanding, regional libraries would feel pressure to
make copies available. At various times it was stated that NLS had to get the message out that the
20,000 DTB titles will not be immediately available on flash cartridges. (This misunderstanding
has been corrected.)

Steve Prine, head, Network Services Section,  reviewed the playback distribution policy.  The
group had a mixed reaction to the preference for centenarians. While most were favorably
disposed towards it, at least one objected to NLS setting any policy beyond the legal preference
for veterans. Others suggested that the justification for the preference policy should be left to
NLS to publicize, not the libraries, but later offered the suggestion that the policy should just be
carried out and not advertised.

The discussion moved to the topic of distribution of advanced and basic players and how to
determine who would get which player.  At issue was the difficulty of communicating to patrons
the differences between the two in a meaningful way.  There was a suggestion that NLS develop
a quick two-sentence description of each player that reader advisors could use to ascertain who
got which machine.  One librarian suggested starting all readers with the basic player. Another
attendee suggested building and distributing only basic machines for the first year but the group
disagreed. 

And finally there was a question about libraries' ability to purchase their own players. Richard
Smith related that his state legislative director had requested money for this purpose and he asked
if a contract rider could be developed. This is to be determined at a later date.

Michael Katzmann reported on NLS's decision not to use radio frequency identification devices
(RFIDs) in the cartridges or players, based on the recommendations from a contractor that had
studied the issue.  RFID refers to technology that uses devices attached to objects that transmit
data to a receiver, eliminating the need to use optical scanners such as barcode readers to identify
the objects.  The discussion was brief and the group seemed to agree that they were not feasible
for use in their libraries at this time.

The discussion of the distribution system design resumed at the end of the afternoon with
considerations and recommendations of random shelving options and continuous weeding. 
Richard Smith favored recycling titles as soon as their immediate turnaround stopped and
thought ManTech should be tasked with investigating alternatives to provide titles that were
requested after being recycled.  The group generally embraced the idea of continuous weeding as
opposed to periodic weeding.

The group was asked if agreement was possible on what should remain in the collection system-
wide.  The numbers suggested that, except for perennially popular books, after six to eight years
titles should be removed from local collections and sent to the duplication-on-demand center.
Some suggested that certain titles should be designated as duplicate-on-demand from day one.
Some also suggested that libraries would be tempted to remove copies as soon as possible,
although the duplication-on-demand model breaks down if it is used for popular titles.

                                                  






                                                       

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager